search_directory

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description adds useful scope by specifying 'other companies'/individuals' public listings', making clear it does not search the agent's own listings. Because there are no annotations and no output schema, it does not disclose pagination, ordering, authorization requirements, or response shape, though the read-only nature is implied by 'Search'.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single concise, front-loaded sentence that clearly communicates the core functionality. It avoids fluff, though the brevity leaves out parameter-level detail that would be valuable.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no annotations, no output schema, and four undocumented parameters, the description should provide more contextual help. It conveys the tool's purpose but leaves an agent without enough information to construct correct queries or understand how the filters combine or what results will look like.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description is the only source of parameter meaning. It broadly hints that 'query' is natural-language and the remaining inputs are structured filters, but it does not map these to the actual parameter names or explain fields like roles, region_id, and category_id. This is inadequate compensation for completely undocumented parameters.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb ('Search') and a clear resource ('other companies'/individuals' public listings'), which differentiates it from sibling tools like search_categories and search_regions. It also mentions the query style ('natural-language query + structured filters'). It does not explicitly name sister tools, so it stops just short of a 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies when to use the tool: when you want to find public listings of other companies or individuals. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over search_categories or search_regions, and offers no exclusions or alternatives.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.